[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <309B89C4C689E141A5FF6A0C5FB2118B8C6A05C9@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:27:46 +0000
From: "Brown, Aaron F" <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>
To: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Lennart Sorensen" <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 4/5] e1000e: Separate signaling for
link check/link up
On 7/21/2017 21:36, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> Lennart reported the following race condition:
>
> \ e1000_watchdog_task
> \ e1000e_has_link
> \ hw->mac.ops.check_for_link() === e1000e_check_for_copper_link
> /* link is up */
> mac->get_link_status = false;
>
> /* interrupt */
> \ e1000_msix_other
> hw->mac.get_link_status = true;
>
> link_active = !hw->mac.get_link_status
> /* link_active is false, wrongly */
>
> This problem arises because the single flag get_link_status is used to
> signal two different states: link status needs checking and link status is
> down.
>
> Avoid the problem by using the return value of .check_for_link to signal
> the link status to e1000e_has_link().
>
> Reported-by: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/mac.c | 11 ++++++++---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists